IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] OID für KEM?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 10 October 2021 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113EF3A0BB8 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q9WjquONh1ug for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70FF3A0BB9 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239471808A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:10:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id PXryt72aTLXN for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158C518022 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B99AD2 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:10:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9710DAC4-ABB2-41D7-8F4B-BDC55DE96F62@ll.mit.edu>
References: <5BA17D7A-F19D-474B-8DD8-8EB36A363818@ll.mit.edu> <C7F5365D-3B42-49CF-AA4F-E6974F071422@vigilsec.com> <FBE3CC86-6DEE-4955-9BA8-3FE2DDF35F4E@ll.mit.edu> <8A3163D9-EB86-487E-B0D4-75A39AB44797@vigilsec.com> <20211008171710.GU4103@kduck.mit.edu> <9710DAC4-ABB2-41D7-8F4B-BDC55DE96F62@ll.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 14:10:37 -0400
Message-ID: <24117.1633889437@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/SfB_pTwVyJCZpGxnBmHGVeXZAqA>
Subject: Re: [lamps] OID für KEM?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 18:10:46 -0000

Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <uri@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
    > On 10/8/21, 13:17, "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:13:01PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
    >>> .  .  .  .  .  My worry is with the winning algorithms.
    >>> I worry that implementations will have to support the
    >>> researcher-assigned OID and the NIST-assigned OID.
    >>
    >> Sounds like what happened at https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16594
    >>
    >> OpenSSL waited for the final SHA3 to implement, but then
    >> got asked to also expose pre-standardization Keccak.
    >> ^^^^

    > I acknowledge the concern that Russ expressed. But IMHO, it's
    > inconvenient at worst. I see no reason to bend over backwards trying to
    > avoid such a situation.

I also agree that it can be annoying, but I don't think that it's that huge a deal.
It would be nice if this didn't happen, but it seems to me that integers are
plentiful, and I think that we gain as a community from understanding how
things work or didn't work.

As I understand Ben's comment, the "pre-standization Keccak" (and the
unmodified Rijndael) are in fact different algorithms.

Ben didn't say what OpenSSL did.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email